BACKGROUNDER

ROBERT LIBMAN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC

Issue

The Libman case raises issues concerning the validity of Quebec's referendum law under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Context

The Libman case stems from the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord which was held, in Quebec, under the province's referendum legislation.

In anticipation of that referendum, Robert Libman, then leader of the Equality Party, challenged the constitutionality of Quebec's referendum law. He argued that the law's requirements that referendum spending be channelled exclusively through the official provincial Yes or No umbrella committees restrict freedom of expression and association to an unjustifiable degree.

Lower Court Proceedings

In a July, 1992 ruling, the trial judge rejected Mr. Libman's challenge and upheld the legislation. While finding certain provisions of the law to violate freedom of expression, the judge ruled that the overall regime was justified under section 1 of the Charter as a means of ensuring a fair and balanced referendum debate.

Mr. Libman appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. In August, 1995, the Court dismissed his appeal by a 2:1 decision. The majority agreed with the trial judge that the legislation was justifiable under section 1 of the Charter. One judge dissented on the basis that the limits of the law placed on freedom of expression were too great for it to be upheld.

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court of Canada

On October 30, 1995, Mr. Libman applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 9, 1996, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On October 21, 1996, the Chief Justice stated the constitutional questions the Court will consider.

In its order stating the constitutional questions, the Court directed that notice be served on federal and provincial attorneys general, and set November 25, 1996 as the date by which notices of intervention must be filed. The Court also set December 16 as the date by which Mr. Libman must file his factum. No date has yet been set for the actual hearing of the case.

Position of the Federal Government

The Attorney General of Canada has announced that the federal government will not file a notice of intervention in the hearing of the Libman case because it is satisfied that the Supreme Court has ample representation for all points of view in the matter. (The federal government was not involved in the lower court proceedings.)

That the federal government should have considered intervention is not unusual. Whenever the federal government receives notice that a case to which it is not a party raises constitutional issues, it is normal for it to examine the situation and consider whether intervention is warranted.